Evidence for God from Science

On what authority do we know that the Bible is inspired? The Bible itself doesn't directly say so, so it's inspiration and inerrancy must rest on the statement of some other authority. What authority?

This is a key question. Now ask yourself what came first, the bible or the church
There was no bible until the late 4th century. There was some argument among the early Christians about what was inspired and what wasnt. God didnt just drop the bible from heaven complete with an inspired table of contents. The hold spirit worked through the apostles and their predessesors. We know the that Bible was inspired because Jesus gave us his promise that the gates of hades shall not prevail over this church.

The Bible doesn't say it's inspired? Then why are all those "Thus says the LORD"'s in there?

Also, in case that doesn't convince you, there's also 2 Timothy 3:16.

cheezerrox wrote:The Bible doesn't say it's inspired? Then why are all those "Thus says the LORD"'s in there?

Also, in case that doesn't convince you, there's also 2 Timothy 3:16.

Is that what 2 Timothy 3:16 really says? Remember that Paul wrote his epistles before the rest of the nt was written. Thus this passage proves at most the inspiration of the old testament. And all the "Thus says the Lord"s assert only inspiration of that particular phrase. There is no "Thus says the Lord, this whole book is inspired." Unless I am missing an important passage, there is no place in the Bible that asserts the its inspiration in totality.

It follows that there must be some other infallible teaching authority that we know inspiration of the Bible from.

dellsOfBittersweet wrote:Is that what 2 Timothy 3:16 really says?

Yes, it really means what it says: all Scripture is inspired by God. You may also want to consider 2 Pe 1:21 and Rev 1:1. If this is still not enough, would not the very character of God guarantee that the Scriptures are inspired and complete when He says they are?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

dellsOfBittersweet wrote:Is that what 2 Timothy 3:16 really says?

Yes, it really means what it says: all Scripture is inspired by God.

Only the Old Testament had been written at the time that Paul wrote to Timothy, so Paul can only be asserting the inspiration of the books that already exist. Do you expect Paul to instruct Timothy to rely on books that don't yet exist?

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: You may also want to consider 2 Pe 1:21 and Rev 1:1. If this is still not enough, would not the very character of God guarantee that the Scriptures are inspired and complete when He says they are?

FL

You aren't taking the Bible literally. Neither of these passages say that the whole Bible is inspired. The passage from Revelation refers to that book only, and Peter is talking about prophesies, not whole books, and certainly not the Bible as a whole.

But even if the entire Bible claimed to be inspired, or if each book was prefaced with "The following writings are the inspired work of God," that would still be insufficient. Saying that the Bible is inspired because it says so is a circular argument. The holy books of other religions, such as Islam, make the same claim. There must be some infallible authority, either Christ himself or an appointed representative, who gaurantees Biblical inspiration.

This authority can not be Jesus, because he never says that he was leaving us with a book of inspired works.

The authority must therefore be the Church that he founded-the Catholic Church.

Edited to add: without an infallible teaching authority asserting the inspiration of the Bible, or a passage of the Bible that claims that it is inspired in toto, belief in Biblical inspiration would be a human construct, a tradition of men.

dellsOfBittersweet wrote:On what authority do we know that the Bible is inspired? The Bible itself doesn't directly say so, so it's inspiration and inerrancy must rest on the statement of some other authority. What authority?

When I see the sun rise at dawn...
-
-
-

The issue is not whether it is inspired, but what "inspired" means to Us, what it meant to those writing and what it meant to those reading or listening.

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is not whether it is inspired, but what "inspired" means to Us, what it meant to those writing and what it meant to those reading or listening.

So you are citing Tradition as the authority for Biblical inspiration? Very Catholic of you.

Othwise this appears to be a very subjective standand. What I feel to be inspired is different from what you feel vs. what a muslim or hinu feels. In this case we really have no way of knowing what books are truly inspired, since everyone disagrees.

B. W. wrote:

dellsOfBittersweet wrote:On what authority do we know that the Bible is inspired? The Bible itself doesn't directly say so, so it's inspiration and inerrancy must rest on the statement of some other authority. What authority?

When I see the sun rise at dawn...
-
-
-

A lot of people apparently can't see the sunrise these days. While all Christians agree on Biblical inspiration, go ask a muslim what writings are inspired. You'll get a different answer. Which books are inspired is not something so obvious that everyone agrees on it without an authority to back us up on it.

dellsOfBittersweet wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is not whether it is inspired, but what "inspired" means to Us, what it meant to those writing and what it meant to those reading or listening.

So you are citing Tradition as the authority for Biblical inspiration? Very Catholic of you.

Othwise this appears to be a very subjective standand. What I feel to be inspired is different from what you feel vs. what a muslim or hinu feels. In this case we really have no way of knowing what books are truly inspired, since everyone disagrees.

Nope, I am citing auto-responsibility, I am saying that it is up to YOU to decide if it is or isn't and WHY because, in the end, YOU will have to answer to God not anyone else.

dellsOfBittersweet wrote:You aren't taking the Bible literally. Neither of these passages say that the whole Bible is inspired.

I do take the Bible literally. You refuse the clear statement God made in 2 Tim 3:16 - God, through Paul - because you seem to have an axe to grind. Fine. I'm glad we both agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

FL

PaulSacramento wrote:

dellsOfBittersweet wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is not whether it is inspired, but what "inspired" means to Us, what it meant to those writing and what it meant to those reading or listening.

So you are citing Tradition as the authority for Biblical inspiration? Very Catholic of you.

Othwise this appears to be a very subjective standand. What I feel to be inspired is different from what you feel vs. what a muslim or hinu feels. In this case we really have no way of knowing what books are truly inspired, since everyone disagrees.

Nope, I am citing auto-responsibility, I am saying that it is up to YOU to decide if it is or isn't and WHY because, in the end, YOU will have to answer to God not anyone else.

If its up to us to decide, what confidence can we have that we decided right? If we are to answer to God for whether he followed the instructions he left in the Bible, how do we decide which books make up the Bible? Christians have disagreed on this issue for centuries. There currently seems to be agreement on the first 66, but should I follow the command to pray for the souls of the dead as found in Macabees, or not?

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

dellsOfBittersweet wrote:You aren't taking the Bible literally. Neither of these passages say that the whole Bible is inspired.

I do take the Bible literally. You refuse the clear statement God made in 2 Tim 3:16 - God, through Paul - because you seem to have an axe to grind. Fine. I'm glad we both agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

FL

I am open to agreeing with your interpretation of Timothy if you can prove it is correct. So far you have answered my critique of the passage by repeating your original assertion. I would like you to respond to my critique. Show me that my understanding is wrong, and I'll be happy to come to your side. How can Paul be talking about a New Testament that hadn't been written yet? Paul is writing around the year 40 or 50, and the Gospel of John, for example, isn't written till the year 90 or 100.

Suppose you are correct. Does Paul saying the Bible is inspired prove that it is? The Quran and Book of Mormon also say they are inspired. How do we know that the Bible is right, and the Quran and Book of Mormon are wrong?

dellsOfBittersweet wrote:How can Paul be talking about a New Testament that hadn't been written yet?

You are not getting something. God wrote 2 Tim 3:16.

dellsOfBittersweet wrote:Suppose you are correct. Does Paul saying the Bible is inspired prove that it is? The Quran and Book of Mormon also say they are inspired. How do we know that the Bible is right, and the Quran and Book of Mormon are wrong?

Read Rev 22:18,19: The Scriptures end with the Scriptures. Once again, it isn't Paul saying that the Bible is inspired and correct in 2 Timothy, it is God. Your question about the Koran and the Book of Mormon is spurious.

FL